Whenever we hear the slogan of ‘zero harm’, we know that it is selective. There is never any discussion in the zero-harm cult about ‘moral harm’ or ‘psychological harm’. Out of sight out of Mind.
Whenever Safety focuses on the silly idea that the presence of injury represents safety (https://safetyrisk.net/the-dangerous-and-harmful-bradley-curve/) there is rarely any definition of what harm actually is.
All this counting usually involves no consideration of the many unseen, invisible and unconscious ways in which humans are harmed.
There is also little consideration about the trajectory of things or the longitudinal ways in which people are harmed in years and decades that follow. Such is the simplistic binary notion of harm projected by Safety.
Moral harm is a form of psychological injury associated with the violation of core values and beliefs associated with moral dilemma. The harm is most often a form of Trauma (https://safetyrisk.net/the-myth-of-normal/). You can study more about moral injury here: https://www.mirecc.va.gov/visn16/docs/moral-injury-psychoeducation-group-program-handbook.pdf
Of course, the dogma, doctrine and ideology of zero causes trauma. It leads to the brutalism of others as a ‘duty’ in the name of a ‘good’ (safety). This is what Hopkins and Cooper advocate (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/). Similarly, the brutalism of BBS. When people are considered as ‘hazards’ in a system (https://safetyrisk.net/how-to-be-a-safety-extremist/ ), you really have to wonder about the trajectory of such thinking.
This is what is behind the Bradley Curve (https://safetyrisk.net/the-dangerous-and-harmful-bradley-curve/ ). You are NOT my ‘keeper’. Being someone else’s ‘keeper’ simply fosters over-riding and control according to what you deem a safety risk (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-gives-me-the-right-to-over-ride-your-rite/ ). And all of this coming from an industry that has no study of ethics in its curriculum.
How astounding that the AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics doesn’t discuss the foundation of moral trauma – the misuse of power. Neither does this document discuss ‘helping’ or ‘care’. Similarly, the literature on the Bradley Curve never defines ‘care’ or ‘helping’. We can only assume that if the Bradley Curve declares Safety as the ‘keeper’ that Safety now has the right to ‘fix’ and over-ride others, in the name of safety. When you focus is on injury rates not personhood (also discussed nowhere in the AIHS BoK), you know the outcome will be brutalism.
One of the alarming things behind the new Code of Practice on Psychosocial Hazards
(https://safetyrisk.net/safety-ethics-spor-and-how-to-foster-the-abuse-of-power/) is the alarming opportunity for safety ‘keepers’ to abuse power. Especially from an industry with no education or training in its curriculum on helping, care, psychology or counselling. And where is safety going to get the complex skills required to tackle psychosocial ‘hazards’? Why is the language of ‘hazards’ used at all to name psychosocial challenges? Mental health and trauma are NOT hazards.
The language of ‘hazards’ is a safety favourite, just as is the language of ‘controls’ (https://safetyrisk.net/psychosocial-controls-and-measures-for-who/). You are neither my ‘keeper’ nor ‘controller’ just because some curriculum has indoctrinated you with a lust for power.
Safety is at best an activity of facilitation, helping and advising and until these become the emphasis of the safety curriculum, safety will never be professional.
If Safety wants to understand trauma and moral harm it has to step outside of its mono-disciplinary cocoon, suspend its agenda and embrace a Transdisciplinary approach to risk. A good start would be reading anything by Gabor Mate (https://safetyrisk.net/the-myth-of-normal/).
Or start by reading these 2 blogs on mental health and risk:
· https://safetyrisk.net/mental-health-risk-safety/
· https://safetyrisk.net/mental-health-risk-and-safety-part-2/
Of course, sanctioning permission to ‘over-ride’ others is a recipe for moral injury. Setting a course for a program based on the Bradley Curve or BBS is a recipe for moral injury. Preaching zero to fallible persons is a recipe for moral injury. Advocating a deontological ethic is a recipe for moral injury.
The AIHS BoK Chapter on Ethics makes no mention of trauma, power, zero ideology, zero harm and moral injury. Indeed, this amateurish publication confuses morality and ethics and so has no credibility to advise the industry about the moral dilemmas associated with moral injury and harm.
If you do want to learn about ethics and morality associated with risk, Dr Long will be conduction a free module on Ethics in early 2023: The module will run Zoom sessions every Tuesday at 9am (Canberra time) starting on 28 March and with sessions at 9 am and each following Tuesday at 9 am for 5 weeks. This means that the last session will be on 25 April.
Registrations for this Module close on 3 February.
Similarly, the free module on culture: The free module will run Zoom sessions every Tuesday at 9am (Canberra time) starting on 21 February and with sessions at 9 am and each following Tuesday at 9 am for 5 weeks. This means that the last session will be on 21 March.
If you are interested, you can register by email to robertlong2@mac.com
Both these free modules are practical, positive, constructive and offer free tools to help people approach risk, safety, ethics and culture in a sense-able method including, an understanding of moral injury and harm.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Selling Safety and the Safety of Selling Safety Culture - January 19, 2025
- You Can’t ‘Bust’ Myths - January 18, 2025
- There is No Such Thing as an HRO - January 18, 2025
- Understanding the SPoR Worldview - January 17, 2025
- How to Escape the Safety=Zero Cult - January 14, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below